Military behemoth that we are, the US is not invulnerable, and not unbeatable, despite the delusions of some who naively presume that the "good guys" always win. Let me get a personal peeve out of the way at the outset of this discussion. We are not in a Global War on Terror. This misnomer really irks me.

"Calling this a War on Terror is like calling the WWII European Theatre a War on Blitzkrieg!" I can't take credit for composing this statement (though I'd love to), but I cannot properly attribute it as I do not know the original source – yet it is so true!!

The fact is that Terror is not a who or a what – it's a HOW. It's a TACTIC just as Blitzkrieg was a tactic. We are not at war with a tactic – we are at war with those who IMPLEMENT that tactic. We are at war with radical Islamic Jihadists who are trying to advance their goal of worldwide Caliphate. Unless we can properly identify the enemy, we can not effectively fight it.

Said Sun Tzu in his ancient work, "The Art of War":

“Know yourself and know your enemy.

You will be safe in every battle.

You may know yourself but not know the enemy.

You will then lose one battle for every one you win.

You may not know yourself or the enemy. You will then lose every battle.”

Do we honestly understand the enemy? Do we honestly know ourselves – our goals, purpose, our reason for fighting, a definition of victory? Has our leadership communicated these things effectively?

"You must master command.

The nation must support you.

Supporting the military makes the nation powerful.

Not supporting the military makes the nation weak.

The army's position is made more difficult by politicians in three different ways.

Ignorant of the whole army’s inability to advance, they order an advance.

Ignorant of the whole army’s inability to withdraw, they order a withdrawal.

We call this tying up the army.

Politicians don’t understand the army’s business.

Still, they think they can run an army.

This confuses the army’s officers."

Is the Army being permitted to wage a winnable war? Are we "tying up" the Army? Do our politicians have a clue?

Why are our politicians blindsided by the insurgency? Why are they surprised that, when Israel hands over Gaza in a "land for peace" bid, the Palestinians then elect Hamas and Hezbollah launches rocket attacks and cross-border raids? Do they not understand the nature of the enemy? I dare say they do not.

Our enemy understands us far better than we understand them. They use our altruism, our freedoms and our own constitution against us. They understand that Americans are largely a narcissistic bunch, seeking immediate gratification and few of us see beyond our own noses. Yes, they discovered that if you bloody us by taking out 3000 of us in a day with a sucker punch, you'll raise our ire… but they also understand we quickly tire of most any endeavor extending beyond a few weeks. They understand we have little stomach for a protracted fight. They have learned that massive attacks as those of 9/11 bring us on strong, but daily picking off 2-4 of our soldiers will soon have our peaceniks calling for our withdrawal. This is why we are not battling an enemy in uniforms with tanks and airplanes, but rather one hiding behind women and kids, launching RPGs and burying IEDs.

Our enemy understands that their strategic battlefield is not in the desert, but on our TV screens and in our newspapers. If they can weaken American resolve, they can get us to stop fighting them. They attack not with artillery and armor, but with apathy, defeatism, self-loathing, and political correctness.

Can we lose? Sadly, it is not outside the realm of possibility.

As the late President Dwight D. Eisenhower once stated: "What counts is not necessarily the size of the dog in the fight – it the size of the fight in the dog."

Do we still have the will to fight? Do we still believe anything is worth fighting for?

As the Bolton confirmation hearings get under way, Mr. Bolton needs to recognize that he is testifying to a group of Senators who already have their minds made up. The testimony is, therefore, irrelevant to his confirmation!

This is not to say that the testimony is unimportant – only that Bolton should pick his audience. Instead of playing to appease his opponents, which is impossible, or preaching to the choir of his supporters on the committee, he needs to take to opportunity to speak directly to the American People about the UN, the role of the United States Ambassador to the UN, and the United States' role in the UN. The confirmation vote will be what it will be, and his testimony will have little effect on changing minds of those casting those votes. He should say his piece, and then urge the committee to get on with the business of confirming or rejecting his nomination. At the end of the day, when the smoke all clears, his confirmation seems likely.

Once confirmed, Bolton should continue to do what he has been doing already: representing the interests of the United States. This is the role of every UN Ambassador… to represent the interests of their nation in the organization.

Ultimately, however, the United States must assess their participation in the corrupt farce that is the UN. There is a growing sentiment among the US population that the US should get out of the UN entirely – and that thought is not utterly without merit.

Further, there is growing sentiment that the UN organization has overstayed its welcome occupying so much prime real estate in Manhattan, and primarily at the expense of the American taxpayer!

The UN has shown itself to be:

Ineffective: Their resolutions have no force unless the US stands up to enforce them… and then the US is criticized for it. UN "Peacekeepers" fail miserably at keeping the peace. Their humanitarian efforts are ineffectual, and are better performed by the Peace Corps and Red Cross. "Aid" rarely reached those it's intended for but frequently winds up propping up those despotic governments that keep their populace in need of the aid!

Corrupt: Anyone remember Oil for Food?

Hypocritical: Sudan on the Human Rights commission?

Oppositional to US interests: (Too numerous to pick a representative example!)

Anti-Semetic: Case in point – Israelis kill 4 UN workers in an air raid targeting Hezbollah positions surrounding these workers – and Kofi Annan condemns Israel for deliberate murder! Hezbollah SHOOTS a UN peaceworker – and there is no condemnation from the UN at all! Every time Israel acts in its own defense, there is UN condemnation… but the UN has yet to condemn those who would see Israel's destruction.

Freeloading: The US provides the UN with real estate, office space, diplomatic immunity, operating budget and troops at US Taxpayer expense. The bulk of the UN's expenses are met by us. In return the UN routinely votes against US interests.

It is time to seriously consider whether hosting the UN, or even participating in it is in the US interest.

What would happen to the UN if we withdrew, reclaimed our real estate and office space, withdrew diplomatic status and visas from the delegates, and invited the UN to find a different home – like the Hague or Paris? Would the organization even survive? Should it?

At least Woodrow Wilson's "League of Nations" had the good sense to declare itself a failure and disband!